The New Under Ground Church-THE TRUTH MUST BE TOLD

Tuesday, October 1, 2019

Supreme Court Will Consider State Laws That Save Babies From Abortions and Help Women

NATIONAL MICAIAH BILGER SEP 30, 2019 | 7:32PM WASHINGTON, DC

Both sides of the abortion debate will be watching the U.S. Supreme Court closely this week to see if it will agree to hear an abortion case.

The justices likely will release their list of new cases sometime this week, and several abortion cases are up for consideration, Bloomberg reports.

One is a Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges for patient emergencies. Soon after it became law in 2014, the abortion facility Hope Medical Group for Women and the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights challenged it in court.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar Texas law in 2016, arguing it burdened women’s access to abortion. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Louisiana law in 2018, saying it “does not impose a substantial burden on a large fraction of women.”

Newsweek predicted that the case has a “better-than-usual chance” of being accepted by the high court.

Here’s more from the report:

In February, [Chief Justice John] Roberts joined the four Democratic-appointed justices to temporarily keep the law from taking effect. Justices who vote for that type of stay order typically do so only when they are prepared to take up the underlying appeal.

But the case also presents a risk for the court’s liberal wing. Roberts dissented from the Texas ruling, and high court review of the Louisiana case would put him in position to overturn the earlier decision if he chooses.

Click Like if you are pro-life to like the LifeNews Facebook page!

Rachel Morrison, a lawyer with the pro-life organization Americans United for Life, said this term should give Americans a better idea about the justices’ stances on the abortion issue. She said she does not think the court will overturn Roe v. Wade soon, but it may consider abortion limits.

“The court across the board in a lot of areas seems to take a more step-by-step approach,” she told the news outlet. “I don’t think that’s going to change when it comes to abortion anytime soon.”

Other cases up for consideration include an Indiana law that requires women to wait 18 hours after having an ultrasound to abort their unborn baby and a case involving pro-life advocates’ free speech outside of abortion facilities.

The U.S. Supreme Court currently is made up of a majority of justices who were appointed by Republican presidents. The confirmation of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh brought renewed hope to pro-life advocates about the future of unborn babies.

However, some of the recent high court decisions have caused concerns. Roberts, a moderate, appears hesitant to accept controversial abortion cases, and he did vote with the four liberal justices to block the enforcement of the Louisiana law in February.

In May, the justices also refused to hear an appeal of an Indiana law that protects unborn babies with Down syndrome from discriminatory abortions. Their decision did not uphold or strike down the law, but it left in place a lower court order blocking the state from enforcing it.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion urging the court to consider the case.

“… this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics,” he wrote. “Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this Court is dutybound to address its scope.”

Thomas said he believes the court needs to “percolate” on the abortion issue more before hearing a major abortion case.

Only time will tell if they are ready now.

Pro-Abortion Joe Biden Scales Back Advertising as His Campaign Falters

NATIONAL STEVEN ERTELT SEP 30, 2019 | 1:05PM WASHINGTON, DC

Pro-abortion presidential candidate Joe Biden is scaling back his online advertising as his campaign falters and other Democrats seeking the party’s not against President Trump are coming on strong.

Biden not only supports killing unborn children in abortions up to the day of birth, he’s announced a plan to force Americans to fund them with their tax dollars. The spending drop coincides with a well-received letter from Father Frank Pavone telling Biden his pro-abortion views are antithetical to the Catholic faith.

As the Daily Caller reports:

Biden is dramatically scaling back digital ad buys while his fellow Democratic opponents are ramping up their online presence, a move some strategists say is unusual for a serious political candidate.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and other top candidates are outspendingBiden online. Biden’s lack of online spending on Facebook and Google ads over the last week come as President Donald Trump continues to throttle him for allegedly pressuring Ukraine to fire a top prosecutor who was looking into a company tied to his son.

Biden has instead shifted his spending toward buying television ads in Iowa, which hasn’t helped his campaign much. Warren, a leading rival for the 2020 nomination, recently surpassed him in a key Iowa poll.

Democratic strategists are trying to make sense of the decision.

Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.

“It’s clear that there’s something in the numbers that’s directing them to go in that direction, and the likeliest explanation is that the rate of return just wasn’t there for Facebook and Google,” Tim Lim, a Democratic digital strategist, told The New York Times Monday. “Which is very, very unusual.”

Though Biden once was more moderate on abortion, supporting restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortions and other measures, more recently, he has embraced his party’s extreme platform on abortion. In June, he announced that he no longer supports the Hyde amendment, which restricts taxpayer-funded abortions.

Biden’s new health care plan would expand abortions in multiple ways. If elected president, he would codify Roe v. Wade into federal law, prohibiting states from passing even moderate restrictions that protect unborn babies from late-term abortions, according to the report.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Biden’s health care plan would force insurers to cover abortion as “essential” health care. In doing so, he would end the Hyde amendment and force taxpayers to fund abortions for any reason up to birth.

His plan also would restore the funding that President Donald Trump cut from the largest abortion chain in America, Planned Parenthood, according to reports. This would include ending the Mexico City policy, which prohibits foreign aid funding to groups that promote and provide abortions overseas. Under Trump, the policy cut about $100 million from the International Planned Parenthood Federation’s budget.

The Washington Post reports Biden’s plan would cost approximately $750 billion over 10 years and cover an estimated 97 percent of Americans.

Though Democratic leaders are embracing an increasingly extreme position on abortion, most Americans are not. A new Gallup poll found that 60 percent of Americans wantabortion legal “only in a few circumstances” (39 percent) or “illegal in all circumstances” (21 percent). That number jumped 7 percent from 2018.

A January poll by Marist University found an overwhelming majority of Americans support restrictions on abortion. It found that three-quarters (75 percent) of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion abroad, while just 19 percent support such funding. Opposition to this funding includes most Republicans (94 percent) and independents (80 percent) and a majority of Democrats (56 percent).

By a double-digit margin, a majority of all Americans oppose any taxpayer funding of abortion (54 percent to 39 percent).

Biden has a strong pro-abortion voting record that goes back for many years, and he supported President Barack Obama’s leadership as the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history. What’s more, pro-abortion movement leaders say they “trust” Biden to protect abortion on demand. As the vice president, he supported the administration’s pro-abortion policies, including Obamacare, which forced religious employers to pay for drugs that may cause abortions.

From 2001 to 2008, Biden’s voting record on pro-life issues was close to zero, according to the National Right to Life Committee. In 2005, for example, he voted against the Mexico City policy, which prohibits funding to overseas groups that promote and/or perform abortions. He also voted repeatedly to require that military service members’ abortions be covered by taxpayer dollars.

To show how extreme Biden has become, he once likened an abortion to an operation — as if taking the life of a baby before birth is somehow beneficial in the same manner as a patient’s operation.

Biden said: “Maybe where Romney is most sketchy is on women’s rights. I got a daughter and lost a daughter. I’ve got four granddaughters and Barack has two daughters. And this is to our core. Our daughters and our granddaughters are entitled to every single solitary operation, every single solitary opportunity!”

Illinois Bans State Employees From Traveling to Pro-Life States

STATE MICAIAH BILGER SEP 30, 2019 | 7:16PM SPRINGFIED, IL

An Illinois lawmaker wants to ban state employees from traveling to pro-life states on government business.

The Herald-News reports state Rep. Daniel Didech, a pro-abortion Democrat, filed the bill Thursday, claiming pro-life state laws are “very dangerous.”

“What these other states are doing is, to me, very dangerous. To a large extent, yes, abortion is a big part of it, but it’s not entirely about abortion,” Didech said. “As a member of the Legislature, I have the responsibility to protect our state employees.”

His bill, state House Bill 3901, would ban the state from requiring employees to travel to states with laws that ban abortions or require investigations into miscarriages. It also would prohibit the government from paying for any employee trips to these states. However, it includes exceptions for certain types of trips that are deemed necessary.

“This is not like a boycott of those states or anything like that, although in effect, it may look similar,” Didech said. “The purpose of the bill is to protect women who may not be able to get the health care they may need when they’re traveling on official state business.”

Abortion is not health care, though. Earlier this year, leaders of the American College of Pediatricians, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other medical groups confirmed that intentionally killing an unborn baby is not necessary to protect women’s health.

PRO-LIFE COLLEGE STUDENT? LifeNews is looking for interns interested in writing, social media, or video creation. Contact us today.

“Abortion treats no disease,” they wrote in a letter published at The Public Discourse. “Pregnancy is not a disease, and deliberately killing the unborn child by abortion is not healthcare.”

As the Catholic News Agency reports, 12 states have passed pro-life laws to restrict or ban abortions so far this year. These include heartbeat laws banning abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy in Georgia, Missouri, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi and Ohio, but none are in effect because of pro-abortion legal challenges.

Meanwhile, Illinois, New York, Vermont and Rhode Island passed radical pro-abortion bills allowing unborn babies to be aborted for basically any reason up to birth.

Robert Gilligan, executive director of the Illinois Catholic Conference, told CNA that Didech’s new bill is “absurd.”

“Where does this thinking begin and end?” Gilligan questioned. “There are states that have weaker gun laws, different speed limits out West, different smoking laws — why don’t we protect our state employees when they travel to other states when they may not have the same laws as Illinois on these issues?”

The city of San Francisco enacted a similar travel ban in July. The ban prohibits employees from taking city-paid trips to Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Mississippi and Alabama, all of which passed laws this year to protect unborn babies from abortions. It also blocks the city from entering into new contracts with companies in those states.

Los Angeles politicians and the California legislature also passed travel bans to pro-life states earlier this year. In May, Colorado banned state-sponsored employee travel to Alabama because of its law that protects unborn babies by banning all abortions.

Killing Babies in Abortions is Not the Answer to “Climate Change”

OPINION KRISTAN HAWKINS SEP 30, 2019 | 7:19PM WASHINGTON, DC

Exaggerated claims and fearmongering to push a political narrative isn’t a new tactic, which explains how the thoughtful, former House Speaker Paul Ryan became a caricature in a campaign ad pushing an elderly women over a cliff or how President Lyndon Johnson blew up a virtual 3-year-old girl in the famous Daisy ad, insinuating his opponent wanted nuclear war.

But the hyperbole of the climate change movement puts such efforts to shame as they preach both that their worldview is correct and undebatable and that all who oppose them are “evil” — deserving, one assumes, whatever they get because in about 10 years it’s all over.

While the environment is not the kind of issue I usually address, a new trend forces me to confront an agitated and organized movement. Convinced that people are the problem, in all our forms, abortion is now emerging as a “solution” to climate change, pushed forward in at atmosphere of fear.

The anti-child movement being developed, named things like #NoFutureNoChildren, equates population control with climate control, making the answer to the world’s problems a reduction in the number of people. As I travel across the country speaking to college and university student groups as head of Students for Life of America, I hear this often as earnest and fearful students say that they are not going to have children, while others fret about children enduring a “post-apocalyptic Mad Max hell scape.”

Celebrities add to this tension. Prince Harry recently said he and his celebrity wife would only have two children because of climate concerns. Speaking to Elle magazine, Miley Cyrus said, “We’re getting handed a piece-of-shit planet, and I refuse to hand that down to my child. Until I feel like my kid would live on an earth with fish in the water, I’m not bringing in another person to deal with that.”

British musician Blythe Pepino founded “BirthStrike” because of her fears for the environment, even though she told CNN, “I really want a kid … I am in a position to be an activist. It’s a stronger calling than motherhood, even though I still mourn the idea.”

And when the elite get together at the highest levels, using government to control outcomes comes next. Case in point, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who turns a jaundiced eye toward his fellow humans.

Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.

At a CNN event, Mr. Sanders praised the abortion lobby in the U.S. that allows the procedure through all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason at all, and sometimes with taxpayer funding. But worldwide abortion is the thing we really need to change the temperature, he indicated, “especially in poor countries around the world.”

Following that thinking, will an income test become law before people can attempt a child? It seems a one-percenter kind of arrogance to assume that money means someone is better suited to parenthood.

Disrespect for human life also leads to all kinds of Hollywood-esque policy conclusions.

Stockholm School of Economics professor and researcher Magnus Soderlund has suggested that eating “human meat” (better known as cannibalism) is a way to reduce gases and create food “sustainability” despite the known health risks when eating human flesh.

Late-night movie buffs might remember Oscar-winning Charlton Heston in “Soylent Green,” an apocalyptic horror flick that aired the same year that Roe v. Wade became law, in which food shortages and global unrest were to be soothed with “Soylent Green,” a sustainable protein source that was supposed to be algae.

Except it turned out that, as the great actor screamed at the end, “Soylent Green is people. Soylent Green is People!”

As a mother of four, also upsetting is how adults are using childrens’ stress over the environment to score political points.

Sixteen-year-old Greta Thunberg’s anxiety over the environment reflects, as the Federalist’s David Harsanyi notes, a child’s “narrow, age-appropriate, grasp of the world.” Of course she is scared and upset as schools parrot information on an issue in which all the solutions are draconian, life-ending events. Yet, rather than helping her process her fears, she is brought out to argue for dramatic government takeover of all international business and government, with a chilling line that seems borrowed from Sting, “We will be watching you.”

Like most people, I care about the environment because I want a safe world for my children and future generations. But killing the preborn, eating the dead and turning control of all human life over to the government isn’t a solution, but rather another set of problems.

Fear of climate change is being used to justify a radical social agenda, including abortion. I wonder if a child in the womb identified as a tree, would that be enough to justify saving that life? This debate is getting out of control.